Standing Committee D

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 29 - Jurisdiction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: We had a good discussion about the expression ''in the vicinity of'', a phrase that left me dissatisfied about the more general matter of jurisdiction. Under the present law, British Transport police officers have the powers and privileges of other constables to enter premises and to inspect various parts of rail property. The Under-Secretary of State and I had a jolly afternoon yesterday in another Committee. As he is aware, we are hoping to obtain a commitment from him today about the extent of the police powers, a point to which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has alluded, and, more particularly, how they relate to the powers of the rail accident investigation branch.
 We want a commitment from the Government that, when carrying out investigations, the inspector and investigator will be accompanied by an officer of the British Transport police. Will the Under-Secretary explain the current powers of the aviation accident investigation branch when one of its inspectors seeks evidence? Are those inspectors always accompanied by a police officer? When undertaking a rail inspection under the current law, are representatives of the Health and Safety Executive always accompanied by a police officer? I can envisage many circumstances in which it would be helpful to the inspection process and assist the inspector or investigator if their powers under the Bill were exercised alongside those of a police constable. 
 We need guidance from the Under-Secretary about subsection (2), which sets out extensive powers that go further than the current law. It states: 
''A constable of the Police Force may enter property which is or forms part of anything specified in subsection (3)—
(a) without a warrant,
(b) using reasonable force if necessary, and
(c) whether or not an offence has been committed.''
 Presumably, under subsection (2)(c), there will have been cause to think that an offence might have been committed and the constable would be anxious to elucidate whether that was the case. 
 The purpose of the debate is to elicit from the Under-Secretary what the present law is and to receive some guidance about whether the clause extends greater powers and authority to the police. We want to know, in particular, whether the provisions relate to the new powers under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. We now know that that includes 
 provisions giving British Transport police constables jurisdiction outside the railways in limited circumstances, and providing additional police powers. It was put to me—we have debated the matter—that not including the words ''in the vicinity of'' would curtail the police's powers under the clause. We know for sure now that the Government are not minded to insert that expression. I would like to know that the police powers will be as extensive as they need to be. 
 We are clearly mindful of the level of the threat and, for understandable reasons, the Government might not be in a position to share all their information with the House. My concern is that we might put all our efforts into the worst-case scenario of an attack on an airport, or an aeroplane being hit on take-off or landing—those are probably the most graphic and vulnerable targets—when the terrorists are looking for a softer target. 
 Obviously, I have a vested interest, in that my constituents and I use the railways. York station is very busy, and so is King's Cross. Do the powers provided under the clause extend sufficiently for such circumstances, or would the transport police have to seek extra powers? Is the Minister convinced that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, taken in conjunction with clause 29, would be sufficient? 
 Subsection (3) mentions the following: 
''(a) track,
(b) a network,
(c) a station,
(d) a light maintenance depot, and
(e) a railway vehicle.''
 Is the Minister satisfied that that is a comprehensive and specific list? Also, might there be exceptions that the Government should have thought of? I am a little concerned that a light railway, tram, trolley bus or other rail vehicle be included in the provisions. It would be helpful to have some guidance from the Minister on the matter. 
 To sum up, we welcome the fact that powers of the British Transport police have been extended as far as they have been under the 2001 Act. I am particularly mindful of the threat that we face. We would like to know for sure whether the Government are satisfied that the transport police have all the powers that they need. Do the Government envisage that, in most circumstances, a British Transport police constable will accompany inspectors or investigators who are exercising their extensive powers under the Bill? I would also like to know whether, in the Minister's view, subsection (3) covers all the scenarios that we can envisage for the purposes of subsection (2).

Linda Perham: The issue of jurisdiction is raised in the clause. Like the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), I raised the subject under clause 17, and the Minister of State said that he would reply at the appropriate time. I shall reiterate the concerns that I raised on Second Reading, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) raised, too. They refer to the extension of the powers of the British
 Transport police under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The major concern of the British Transport police is that those powers have to be reviewed within two years, and they are anxious to keep them. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reply to those concerns now.

David Jamieson: Good morning, Mr. Hood. I am pleased to be back in Committee. As you can probably tell, I have about 95 per cent. of my voice today, whereas last week I had about 40 per cent. of it. I shall make a few general points about the clause, and pick up the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and the hon. Member for Vale of York regarding clause 29.
 The British Transport police's main duties consist of public policing, exactly like a Home Office police force. However, unlike a Home Office force, the British Transport police have to police and patrol private property, albeit private property to which the public have access—for example, railway stations and trains. Clause 29 gives the British transport police a statutory jurisdiction over railway property throughout Great Britain. Within that jurisdiction the British Transport police constable would have all the powers and privileges of a Home Office constable. The jurisdiction extends outside railway property on matters relating to railways. For example, a British Transport police constable would have jurisdiction to chase someone who has committed an offence on the railway and subsequently tried to escape by running off into the local town. 
 The British Transport police need to police and patrol the railways on a day-to-day basis. Clause 29(2) and (3) gives the British Transport police constable a statutory right to enter and to police specifically defined areas of railway property. Those are places where the public may be legitimately present, for example at a railway station, or illegally present, for example trespassing on the track or posing a threat to rail safety. We have consulted widely on creating a statutory right for British Transport police constables to police such places. That proposal has received broad industry support. 
 In other areas of railway property, such as a train company's head office, the British Transport police constable is subject to the same restrictions that apply to a Home Office constable. A British Transport police officer would therefore be unable to enter a head office to investigate a rail ticket fraud, for example, unless invited to do so, holding a search warrant or exercising some other statutory right of entry. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the rail accident investigation branch. Some of those points were dealt with during the debate on clause 7. The rail accident investigation branch's powers are modelled on those of the aviation accident investigation branch. A representative of Her Majesty's rail inspectorate would not always be accompanied by the police—nor would an air accident inspector—but a rail accident inspector 
 would need to provide evidence of identity before entering railway property to carry out appropriate investigations. 
 Clause 29 dovetails with powers defined under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act that allow British Transport police to operate outside these areas on non-railway matters. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North asked a question regarding that Act. The sunset facility within the Act would only take out matters that were no longer relevant. A strong case has been made in this Committee for keeping the power of the Home Office police to ask the British Transport police to be involved in an investigation outside their normal area of jurisdiction. That is a matter for the review, which I cannot pre-empt, but we have taken note of the comments that have been made during this debate. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about light railway, trams and trolley buses. That is a sub-group of railways and as such it has no defined separate legal meaning.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to hon. Gentleman for his reply. Both the hon. Member for Ilford, North and I have highlighted our concern about implications regarding the sunset provisions. We must ensure that the British Transport police have all the powers that they need during a heightened state of alert. As the Minister said, the clause ensures that the powers of British Transport police officers are as extensive as those currently enjoyed by constables appointed by the Home Office, which should satisfy the Committee.
 The Minister does not seem to like me referring back to trolley buses and trams, but I was rather taken by our discussion. I referred to clause 7 because I cannot emphasise strongly enough our belief that inspections would be helped were a British Transport police constable to accompany an inspector when appropriate. 
 In the consultation, concern was expressed about the proposal that the branch be given the power to undertake an investigation on the network, track or rolling stock of a railway. A tramway is a transport system using another mode of transport that is not a trolley vehicle system. The specific concern was that the investigative procedure for the London underground and other metro systems be dealt with explicitly. 
 I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North on voicing her concern on behalf of her constituents about the accident on the Central line. We should focus more strongly on what would happen in the event of a disaster, which may not necessarily be a terrorist attack. I am always mindful of the devastation that was caused by the King's Cross fire and in the Moorgate disaster. We must take on board the concerns expressed by the police force and the railway industry. 
 I note the extensive powers in the clause and it is good to know that the Bill sits comfortably with the additional powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Will the Government assure us that the House will be consulted about the sunset clauses prior to undertaking the review? Perhaps a note could 
 be left in the Library. Otherwise, I anticipate a flood of parliamentary questions on the subject from all parties.

David Jamieson: As always, I would be delighted to deal with a trickle or a flood of parliamentary questions from the hon. Lady. We should clarify one point. For an inspector always to be accompanied by a British Transport police constable would be unduly restrictive and unnecessary in many circumstances. The powers have been well set out in the early clauses of the Bill and we would not want to place too many restrictions. In certain circumstances, it may be totally unnecessary for a constable to be present. To clarify a point that was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, the London underground does not need specific mention. It is a railway, so it is therefore covered by the powers of the rail accident investigation branch.

Anne McIntosh: I have one remaining question about the position of technical evidence under the jurisdiction of clause 29. What is the position of technical evidence held by the police, the investigation branch and the Health and Safety Executive? I understand that the joint protocols proposed in the consultation process to deal with how technical evidence would be treated by the various authorities are thought to be essential.
 The British Transport police produced a draft protocol to part 2 of the Ladbroke Grove inquiry on the proposed relationship between the rail accident investigation branch, the Health and Safety Executive and the British Transport police; this harks back to the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath. That is very constructive, subject to a number of points on which the train-operating companies would differ. In particular, it identified three categories of information obtained. In the case of all three, there was a presumption that the information should be disclosed for safety purposes. With regard to information with significant safety implications, that presumption could be displaced only by exceptional public interest. In the case of all three categories of information, the British Transport police proposal was for the final decision on disclosure to rest with the RAIB. 
 This is my question to the Minister: at what stage would the Government be minded to consider through protocols and memorandums of understanding to take on board the viewpoints of the industry, the British Transport police and the Health and Safety Executive, and to address what the relationship between them would be? That would fall neatly in clause 29. Jurisdiction and how the evidence in an inspection might be dealt with are still outstanding issues. 
 I do not wish to labour the point, but there are circumstances in which it might be helpful for a police constable to be present—for example, if a branch investigator or inspector hopes to visit a private property or dwelling house where there is an aggressive person. The worst-case scenario would be if a police constable were to accompany an inspector on every occasion: that would take up a lot of British 
 Transport police time, and I would not recommend it as it might be going too far. However, the Bill does not describe the circumstances in which it might be advisable for a police constable to accompany an inspector. It would be helpful if those issues were addressed. 
 I turn to the monitoring process. When consultation was taking place, it was thought that the head of the RAIB would report periodically to the Secretary of State to assess the effectiveness in practice of the protocols that I referred to earlier. In its submission to Lord Cullen, the British Transport police stated that it thought that it had no technical expertise in this field and that therefore other bodies should take the technical lead. The Bill is silent on that, and the Government would be well advised to say more about it.

David Jamieson: The hon. Lady gave circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a British Transport police constable to accompany an inspector, but decisions about such matters will be made by those who produce the RAIB protocol. That is being worked on by the industry group, but it wants to hear the chief inspector's views. Someone is on the verge of being appointed to that post, and when that happens, the protocols will be worked up. I do not want to pre-empt what they will contain.
 On the sunset clauses, it is important to re-affirm that the British Transport police will continue to have anti-terrorism powers, and that they will remain on the statute book unless the Privy Council review states that they should be removed. Even if that were to happen, the decision could be overturned by Parliament. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jimmy Hood: For good order, I make the following suggestion to hon. Members. When I use my discretion to allow a stand part debate, hon. Members' contributions should relate to the clause, and not be a line-by-line speech. I do not want to hear 20 speeches about 20 individual lines in the clause. If the clause has not been amended, a stand part speech should relate to the clause as a whole. Hon. Members should not make five or six speeches on clause stand part. If something needs to be clarified from the Minister's responses, that is a different matter. I make that point to be helpful.
 We now reach clauses 31 to 41. Would I be ambitious in putting the Questions on them together?

Anne McIntosh: Yes.

Jimmy Hood: I shall not be ambitious then; I shall call the clauses separately.Clause 30 Prosecution

Clause 30 - Prosecution

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: Good morning, Mr. Hood. I shall be extremely brief. You have generously selected several amendments in my name to clause 39
 that relate to vandalism. For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that under clause 30, the police force that investigates
''an offence in the course of the exercise of its functions''
 will also consider vandalism and trespass? If the answer is yes, what are the Minister's feelings about the discretion that the clause gives to the chief constable to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the offences? 
 Although I shall talk about the issue at greater length later, I should point out that there were 15,075 reported vandalism offences in 2001–02, but only 2,200 prosecutions. There were 15,395 reported trespass offences, but only 903 prosecutions. Does the Minister agree that those figures show that trespass and vandalism are not taken seriously by the BTP, or is there a different explanation?

Anne McIntosh: My understanding is that the law of trespass does not apply in Scotland, and I wonder whether that will pose an interesting conundrum under the Bill.
 The clause is clear that the chief constable may institute criminal proceedings in respect of a criminal offence. Clause 32 creates a new civil offence for which the penalty will be a fine. Which body will prosecute such a civil offence?

David Jamieson: At present, British Transport police frequently prosecute those who infringe railway byelaws. The clause will allow the BTP to continue to do so. It will be fairly apparent that the BTP does not and will not have the resources to mount large-scale prosecutions for serious cases. I hope that I help the hon. Member for Vale of York by telling her that such serious cases are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service, and I would expect that to continue.
 The hon. Member for Bath asked about vandalism. The BTP would and could investigate vandalism. It keeps an eye on the railways in case of trespass but I understand that trespass is a civil offence. No other piece of legislation clearly states the role of the British Transport police in investigating criminal actions. It uses the Crown Prosecution Service, under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, to prosecute offences on the railways. The clause would allow the British Transport police to prosecute a number of minor offences that the CPS does not currently deal with and, as I understand it, there is no need for a similar provision in Scots law. In answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York, who asked who would prosecute, the CPS would bring the case to court. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Police services agreement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I rise just for clarification. The annual report of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions refers to a number of service agreements. Will the Minister tell us whether the clause sets out a new police services agreement or whether provisions are being made for the existing police services agreement to be enshrined in the Bill? Does the police services agreement, as set out in the clause, provide a means of setting a target and will such a target be set against the benchmark of a specific sum of public money? The customer is presumably the railway industry, and I understand that it is most likely that the train operating company will specify the sums provided for. I wonder what the relationship will be. It will be apparent why that is relevant when we consider clause 32.
 I have already made the point that the industry is being asked to fund the provisions. What will be the relationship between the police and the train operating companies? Should there be some disagreement about which objective plans and targets they would prefer, would they appeal to the Secretary of State? The Department must have some responsibility for the matter. The clause is not perhaps as clear as on that point as it might be. It would be helpful to know what expense was envisaged in respect of the police services agreement and whether that was substantially increased under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001.

David Jamieson: I shall say a few words on the clause, because it leads us into some later clauses.
 The clause provides for a system of police services agreements, which will act as the means by which the financial arrangements between the Authority and railway operators are calculated and set out. Police services agreements are contracts between the body that is responsible for a police force and an individual company that allows a police force to provide its services to the company. 
 The British Transport police undertakes the policing of the railways through a series of police service agreements. Those agreements are made between the Strategic Rail Authority and individual railway companies. The existing police service agreements have two functions. First, they serve as a financial agreement between the SRA and the railway company to allow the company to pay for the British Transport police services that it receives. Secondly, they enable the British Transport police to provide police services to the company. Most importantly, the agreements allow the British Transport police to police a company's property. That in effect provides part of the British Transport police's jurisdiction over railway property. 
 The system of police services agreements will be retained under our proposals, but they will be only financial agreements between the authority and the railway company. Providing statutory jurisdiction for the force under clause 29 will mean no longer having to rely on police services agreements to police publicly a railway property. 
 I think that there was some confusion about public service targets, which will be agreed between the 
 Department and the Treasury. The police services agreements are simply financial agreements between the companies and the British Transport police.

Anne McIntosh: May I seek clarification? The Minister said that under clause 31, the police services agreements mean that the force has the jurisdiction under clause 29? Does that change the way in which the BTP goes about its business? That question arises from one of the notes that the Minister helpfully clarified a moment ago. Will he repeat the relationship between the police services agreement in clause 31 and provisions in clause 29?

David Jamieson: Nothing will change substantially. The hon. Lady asked what would happen if the relationship broke down, and we will cover that when we move on to clause 33.

Anne McIntosh: The debate has been immensely helpful and shows why we should have the opportunity to hear about the clause from the Minister. I want to put down a marker to show why I am worried about the clause and why I shall return to the matter. We have established that the clause is necessary in order to develop and agree police services agreements. I do not want to pre-empt what I shall say about clause 48, but that clause will give great power to the Secretary of State to set the police authority a set of objectives for policing the railways during the financial year. The clause says that before giving such directions
''the Secretary of State shall consult . . . the Authority, and . . . the Chief Constable.''
 It is curious that the clause omits a provision for any form of consultation with the railway industry, although the industry will be asked to pay.

Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Lady on teasing some information from the Minister. Does she share my anxiety that we have not yet heard from the Minister a clear statement of why it is necessary to have such a complex and bizarre form of funding for one police service when all the Home Office police forces are funded directly through taxation? The businesses and members of the public that are served and protected by those forces are not expected to enter into such agreements. Why is there a different arrangement for the railways?

Anne McIntosh: One hates to put words in the Minister's mouth, but I am sure that the industry would say that the reason is that it is being asked to pay. That is the key difference between the BTP and the regular police force—the Home Office bobbies.
 I would not want to admit to being over-anxious because that might make the Committee overly apprehensive and I do not want to take it down that path. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Bath. Part 3 of the Bill is deeply confusing. I am not an expert in this field, but if I find it confusing, the industry—and the parties to it—must find it equally so. Perhaps there could be an easier and clearer way of doing this? 
 The industry is a poor third party here. The Government are party to the agreement, as it has 
 been approved in writing by the Secretary of State, and the police forces are party to it, but the poor relation is the industry, the very companies which are being asked to pay for it. An alarm bell starting ringing for me when the Minister mentioned the sunset clauses of the 2001 Act. Those will be repealed only if there is a review, but how will Parliament be informed of that? I assume that we will not be informed of the detail of the police services agreements after the Bill has left Committee and become statute. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that there must be a clearer and easier way of acting. At the end of the day, the buck stops with the train companies, and they are shabbily treated by the agreements.

Don Foster: I apologise for detaining the Committee. A sedentary comment from the Minister caused me to rise: he asked whether I was suggesting that the taxpayer should pay for the police? I am prepared to be convinced that police service agreements are the way forward in funding the British Transport police, but there is an onus on the Minister to make that case.
 All other police forces are funded directly by taxpayers, and they provide the service of protection in their areas. The British Transport police protect members of the public that travel on our railways, and the employees of the railway companies. They are of benefit to the various train companies—train operating companies, rolling stock operating companies, Network Rail and so forth. The situation is unique. We expect those companies to employ their own police force, even though it serves the public at large. 
 The Minister asked if I wanted the taxpayer to pay instead? He may smile, but he knows that the taxpayer pays anyway, through the funding we provide to the train operating companies. We have recently seen the Government give an extra £58 million to one train operating company—Connex—in order to keep it going, and in addition to all the other sums that it has already received. 
 The taxpayer is paying already, and now has to pay through the complex mechanism of the Bill. Despite the Minister's claim to the hon. Member for Vale of York that matters are not changing significantly, they are changing dramatically. The railway companies' side of the deal has been removed. They cannot specify how policing takes place, nor the premises on which it will occur. The jurisdiction now given to the British Transport police is covered by earlier clauses. 
 What we now have is merely a funding mechanism. That is a significant change from the previous arrangements, and it is a complex arrangement. Why is it necessary to act in that way, rather than employing the arrangements used for all other police forces.

David Jamieson: The Government's policy is that the British Transport police should continue to be funded by the railways industry. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Bath that the Government supports the British transport police indirectly through subsidy and funding for the industry. Obviously, the industry likes that method of funding, and is not keen
 for change. That method has worked well for the last 10 years, and we understand the value of continuity. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that a separate, discrete force, directly paid for by the taxpayer, would be more appropriate, although I know that he did not say as much. We think that the new arrangements are the most appropriate.
 The services agreements will be drafted with reference to the objectives, plans and targets for policing. The train operating companies—which are, after all, private companies—will then learn what they get for their money. On the issue of whether there are similar arrangements for other forms of transport, other transport industries pay for policing. Airports do so, for example. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Compulsory police services agreement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: My next point follows on neatly from the issues raised by clause 31. Under clause 32, the Secretary of State may, for the first time, make it compulsory by order for a train company to
''enter into a police services agreement''
 with the British Transport police. I understand that that is quite a significant change. For the first time, failure to enter into such an agreement will become a statutory offence. We are told that the company will be subject 
''on conviction on indictment, to a fine.''
 The fine may be small or large. It would help to have guidance on how the fine will compare with those for offences under existing legislation. 
 To my limited knowledge, there is no such provision for constables under the Home Office remit. The issue is greatly exercising the minds of train operating companies. Clearly, it is in their interests to enter into a police services agreement. The Minister will understand that the railway industry is under extreme pressure, even without the current increased terrorism threat security alert and, as I have mentioned, trains and stations are something of a soft target. Also, companies are undergoing significant refranchising negotiations, and if they do not negotiate a successful franchise, they will no longer be players. 
 This is a very difficult time for train operating companies, and I wonder whether it sends the right message to make failing to enter into an agreement a statutory offence. The industry put that argument to me; I am not a great expert in the field, and if the Minister were to contradict me, that in itself would be helpful. The industry's understanding is that the clause will create a new statutory offence that is subject to a civil penalty in the form of a fine. A large fine would 
 make it even more difficult for train companies to operate. 
 Perhaps the Minister can envisage circumstances in which it might be difficult for a train operating company to reach an agreement with the police. In what time frame do we imagine the train-operating company will have to come to such an agreement? I am sure that the Committee would find it helpful to know the philosophy behind that. I think that companies have had to enter into police service agreements in the past. Have there been particular difficulties? Have the Government experienced intransigence? 
 Last year's annual report does not appear to state that this has been a problem that the Government have had to tackle. I wonder what message that gives to the train operating company and its passengers—my constituents and me—about the circumstances that may arise or have arisen to create difficulties that would prevent the conclusion of such an agreement. I share the concerns of the industry and the train-operating companies about why it has been felt to be necessary to make this a statutory offence. How much time will be allowed? What has been the thinking behind this decision? 
 I cannot speak for the train operating companies, although Committee members will remember that I have an interest in First Group, which still has a franchise and some buses. I should not have mentioned that because, knowing the Minister, he will now ensure that it does not have a franchise. 
 The clause could prove regrettable, and I wonder whether the Minister would like to take this opportunity to justify it. I am unaware of any circumstances that have created difficulties in the past. Why do we need the clause? I cannot see how it takes us forward. It would be putting it too strongly to say that it is getting the backs of the industry up, but it is another little niggling thing for it to worry about at what is already a very difficult time.

Don Foster: Taken as a piece, clauses 31, 32 and 33 demonstrate the Government's thinking about how the British Transport police will be funded. When we debated clause 31, we discussed the British Transport police authority entering into agreements with various train operators and other industry bodies. Clause 32 states that the
''Secretary of State may by order''
 require various categories of person to enter into such agreements. Why is the word ''may'' used? I am aware that that word is part of parliamentary language, but can the Minister confirm that even if it is correct in the context, ''may'' should be interpreted as ''will'' because everyone will be required to enter into such agreements? The various rail industry bodies might extend the details of their agreements and pay the British Transport police more for a gold-plated service, but they will in any case be required to offer the basic service, so ''may'' is a strange word to use. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York shares my concerns about the unnecessary complexity of these 
 arrangements and has rightly asked why an offence has to be created in the way that is described. I wish to suggest an alternative way forward that would avoid that problem, and to ask the Minister why the Government have not followed that route. Would it not be possible to impose as a franchise requirement on, for example, a train operating body the requirement that it has a police services agreement? That would remove criminalisation. 
 When we start to think about it, the whole scheme seems to be nonsense. When we come to address clause 33, we will probably discuss the arrangements for arbitration by the Secretary of State in relation to disputes that may occur: through nobody's fault—simply because there is a need for arbitration to resolve a disagreement—there will be periods when a police services agreement is not in place, yet during that period I assume and hope that the British Transport police will still operate in the premises and vicinity of the train operating company that still has to finalise an agreement. The reality is that the British Transport police will continue to operate even on occasions when the PSA is not in place. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?

David Jamieson: Clause 32 gives the Secretary of State power to make orders requiring certain railway operators to enter into police services agreements. Such operators will commit an offence and be subject to a fine if they provide railway services without having entered into an agreement. The British Transport police authority will be under a duty to take reasonable steps to facilitate compliance by those required to enter into police services agreements and the Secretary of State will consult with those on whom he is considering imposing a requirement before he imposes it.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the fine. It will be limited to the statutory maximum of £5,000 unless the company is convicted on indictment, when the fine could be unlimited. The fine is to ensure that the train companies take the need to enter into the agreement seriously. Of course, without that, the British Transport police could not be funded. 
 Let me clarify the point about the existing situation. At the moment the rail regulator cannot grant a licence to operate a railway asset unless the operator has a police services agreement with the employer of the British Transport police—that is, the Strategic Rail Authority. Any company that operates a railway asset without a licence—unless there are circumstances that exempt them—could receive a maximum fine under the circumstances that currently apply. 
 The hon. Member for Bath asks why it should be made an offence not to have a police services agreement via the licence? The simple answer to that is that it is already an offence. The hon. Member for Vale of York used the expression ''not to worry'' as advice to the train operating companies. There is no need to worry, because the situation has not changed materially—but the Bill must set that out clearly. She asks why that has to be enshrined in law and if there have been any difficulties with setting up the agreements. I do not know of any difficulties that have been created up to now, but she will appreciate 
 that the law has to anticipate every circumstance. As an advocate herself, the hon. Lady will know that the law has to look towards any circumstances that may arise in the future, and not restrict itself to those of the past. That is why the matter has been contained in the law.

Anne McIntosh: Again, the clause stand part debate shows why it is important to tease out information from the Minister. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Bath, but I am not convinced that the provision is necessary. It could amount to more than a niggle to the train companies. Under current circumstances, they pay for the British Transport Police and are the main beneficiaries of its work. The provision could lead to difficulties in relations between the British Transport police and train operating companies. The Minister dismisses that concern, saying that the law must have regard not only to what has happened in the past, but to circumstances that may arise in the future. I submit that we ought to wait until such time as that has become an issue; there is not an issue at the moment.
 For the first time, we will have a situation in which an operator will be required to enter into a PSA and if it fails to do so, it will commit an offence if it then provides railway services as defined in clause 72(2). That is highly regrettable, and I think that we shall return to the matter.

Don Foster: I must be going deaf—the remaining 5 per cent. of the Under-Secretary's argument has not reached me yet. I have not yet heard an answer to my basic question. Arbitration under clause 33 could be lengthy, given that the matter could be taken to the High Court.

Jimmy Hood: Order. The Committee is discussing clause 32.

Don Foster: My point is that, during an arbitration period under clause 33, a PSA will not be in place, which is required under clause 32. Will the British Transport police continue to operate in those circumstances? I need a simple yes or no.

David Jamieson: As there is an obligation under the licence for a police services agreement to be in place, negotiations would take place before the company could operate. If the company were already in operation, a PSA would exist. If discussions were taking place about a new agreement, the existing agreement would hold until the new one came into force.
 Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Arbitration by Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to tease a little more out of the Under-Secretary. He is wriggling in his seat, and I hope that that is not a sign of discomfort. We established, under clause 32, the potential for an offence. The explanatory notes from the Library state
 that not all providers of rail services will be obliged to enter into such an agreement. However, providers such as London underground, Croydon tramlink, the docklands light railway and Eurostar will be obliged to enter an agreement. Presumably, a dispute for the purposes of clause 33 does not relate to the fact that a company has failed to enter into an agreement because, since that is a civil offence, it cannot be classified as a dispute.
 Will the Under-Secretary clarify the nature of a dispute? How will the remit of the Secretary of State compare with his present remit? Clearly, he or a nominated person will have the power to give the party in dispute the opportunity to make representations? To what extent does Parliament have the power to oversee the work of the Secretary of State? Must we wait for the annual report to alert us to the fact that there has been a dispute? Is that the traditional way in which such disputes are dealt with? Will there be an independent body to which the parties could turn? We are told that if there were a dispute on a point of law, recourse would be made to the relevant court in England or Scotland. Will the Minister set out the current arrangements? What will be the exact remit of the Secretary of State? What power will we, as elected parliamentarians who have an interest in railways, have to oversee the Secretary of State to keep him on the right track?

Don Foster: Clause 33 refers to a dispute between the British Transport police authority and the person who has entered into a police service agreement. We are discussing an agreement that has already been reached, but over which there is a dispute about the way in which it operates. The problem is that I do not understand why the clause does not cover the problem of parties unable to reach agreement on the introduction of a police services agreement. If there is disagreement, how will such matters be handled? Do we simply rely on clause 32, which states that people must enter into an agreement anyway, and that if they do not like it, there is no opportunity to do anything about it?
 Clause 32 suggests that people are required to enter the agreement whether or not they like the 
''terms construction or operation of the agreement''.
 Do they enter into it under clause 32 and then, under clause 33, immediately have a dispute about it? That would be bizarre.

David Jamieson: Clause 33 provides for the Secretary of State to determine disputes relating to a police services agreement between the authority and the operator. The clause also provides a means of appeal to the courts on the Secretary of State's determination, but only on a point of law. That places in legislation the current informal arrangements for dealing with disputes involving the Strategic Rail Authority, as the employer of British Transport police.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether operators were required to enter into the police services agreement. Some operators might argue that 
 it is not essential to enter into the agreement—a freight depot employing its own security staff, for example. The Government would consult the operators before requiring them to enter into an agreement, but most are likely to be required to do so. The hon. Lady asked how disputes will be dealt with. They will be handled in exactly the same way as they are now. I emphasise that clause 33(1) is about 
''the terms, construction or operation of the agreement''
 and not about whether a person should enter into the agreement. 
 On the point made by the hon. Member for Bath, there is no question that operators should have to enter into the agreement. When a dispute about the terms has not been resolved after the police services agreement has been established, the Secretary of State, or someone appointed by him, would resolve the dispute.

Don Foster: I can see that the Minister is fed up with my pressing the point, and I apologise if I am offending him because I have no desire to do that. I merely seek clarification. It is clear that clause 32 may impose on a railway industry body the requirement to enter into a PSA. The
''terms, construction or operation of the agreement''
 are subject to discussion between the various parties. 
 At the end of the day, however, the railway industry body has no choice and must accept whatever is put before it. Clauses 31 and 32 include no opportunity for arbitration if there is disagreement at the stage of trying to agree the details of the PSA. Am I right in thinking that, in those circumstances, people have a gun pointed at their heads and have no choice but to sign? They have met the requirement of having entered into the agreement and must then go through the arbitration procedure. Is there no mechanism for arbitration in reaching the agreement in the first place?

David Jamieson: No. There is no choice about entering into the agreement, but it must be approved by the Secretary of State under clause 31(2), which ensures that the agreement is not one-sided. If the parties have still not made an agreement, it is up to the Secretary of State to arbitrate formally, which is exactly what happens now.

Anne McIntosh: The clause goes much further than we might think. Subsection (6) states:
''The Secretary of State or his nominated person''
 may vary the terms of the police services agreement. That seems expensive. I listened carefully to the Minister and did not hear him say that we parliamentarians would be involved in the process at all. I do not seek to usurp the role of the Secretary of State—that would be beyond me. However, this is no small cheese that we are talking about. We are told that the policing costs will be split between Network Rail, train operating companies, independent train operators, open-access operators and London Underground. The British Transport police's annual budget was £125.8 million in 2001–02, which was the last full financial year for which we have figures. The train operating companies funded the lion's share, 
 paying £61.1 million. Railtrack provided £35 million and London Underground £30.9 million. 
 The clause is powerful and it has to be included for the reasons that the Minister set out, but I seek clarification on subsection (6)(b), which would vary the terms of the police services agreement. The worst-case scenario is that a train operating company would be put into a difficult position. It could be committing a civil offence under clause 32. It might enter into an agreement and find that under the clause the terms of the agreement are varied through the arbitration process. I seek further clarification from the Minister.

David Jamieson: There is not much more that I can add, although I say to the hon. Member for Bath that I am certainly not annoyed or even mildly offended by anything that he said. He was quite properly asking questions as he always does, and I am sure that he will continue to do so during our debates. In the event—albeit an unlikely event—of an agreement not being struck, there must be a final arbiter, which is the Secretary of State or a person whom he appoints to do that job.
 On the point raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York, the Secretary of State is accountable for all his actions through Parliament and he must account for them through all the means and methods that we have of bringing a Secretary of State to account. The clause provides the ability for any decision made by the Secretary of State to be judicially reviewed if it were thought to be unreasonable. If a party felt aggrieved, that further avenue is open for them to take the matter forward, should that be necessary. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Police regulations: general

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I would hate to disappoint you by not rising to speak to the clause, Mr. Hood.
 This is an expansive measure, which covers various substantive clauses that relate to the regulations of police forces. I understand that the Home Secretary has powers under the Police Act 1996 to make regulations by order regarding the Government's administration and the conditions of service of police forces. Those regulations relate to and make provision for rank, qualifications for appointment and promotion, probation and voluntary retirement, conduct and efficiency, including the maintenance of dismissal, suspension, maintenance of personal records, duties that are to be performed by members of the force and duties that they should not do, hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances, design and performance requirements of equipment provided or used for these purposes, and the issue, use and return of equipment. 
 I understand that the Home Secretary will also have powers to make regulations for the government, administration and conditions of service of special constables and cadets. I am sure that the Minister will 
 explain that the reason for the provision is that the regulations that the Home Secretary may make on regular police officers, the constitutional proceedings of the Police Federation of England and Wales and attendance at federation meetings, do not currently apply to the British Transport police. Presumably, therefore, the regulations are part and parcel of putting the British Transport police on a statutory footing—a codification and revision of legislation, which we welcome. 
 I understand, too, that the Strategic Rail Authority is regarded as an employer of the force. Again, it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Bath is not present because I know how close an interest he takes in the subject. He is lucky that he can slip out of the room.

David Jamieson: The hon. Lady can go too.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the Minister would like that.
 The clause demonstrates why the protocols are so important. We have heard from the Minister, even during this morning's proceedings, that the protocols are under discussion—no doubt as we speak. I would find it very helpful to see and consider the protocols. That would help us understand this complicated and technical part of the Bill. The SRA is the force's employer, yet as we have learned it is paid by the industry. The SRA as employer has in the past applied legislation to the British Transport police through devices such as conditions of employment and force general orders. Will the Minister confirm that those orders will lapse once the Bill becomes law, and be replaced by regulations drafted under the clause? 
 The first option outlined in the consultation paper was to amend the Police Act 1996, setting the British Transport police alongside Home Office forces for the purposes of the legislation. That option may have been attractive to the hon. Member Bath, although since he is still not with us, we do not have to worry too much about what he thinks. The second option was that the Department for Transport adopted a parallel role to that of the Home Office and by order made regulations on the British Transport police that were based on previous Home Office regulations. 
 The third option was to improve BTP regulations within the present process, amending them when required. The fourth and final option was to enable the British Transport police authority to make regulations reflecting Home Office regulations. It would be helpful to know why the fourth option has been chosen. Will the Minister confirm that the fourth option has been chosen because it will broadly duplicate the present position, substituting in legislation the British Transport police authority for the SRA as the employer? The clause therefore reflects quite a substantial change. 
 I assume that the Government will say that the switch of employer from the SRA, which applies regulations to the British Transport police, to the police authority, which will make regulations for its police force, represents a significant improvement in public accountability. The authority would become the BTP's employer and legislation could include a 
 requirement for the authority to make regulations for the BTP that are consistent with Home Office regulations, unless no regulations exist. How do the regulation provisions in the clause relate to Home Office regulations? Are they identical and, if they differ, will the Minister tell us in what ways? 
 I understand that an attraction of option four is that it would leave the British Transport police authority free to adapt Home Office regulations for the BTP as they are issued. It could be a requirement for the Secretary of State to confirm any regulations made by the authority before they come into effect, which would be a safeguard against the possibility that the authority's adaptation of Home Office regulations could lead to distortion. It is not immediately clear in the clause that the Secretary of State will be given the power of confirmation. Will the Minister explain whether the Secretary of State has the power to confirm regulations? 
 I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bath has resumed his place, and I could go through the whole thing again for him—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady is not checking her pager while she is addressing the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: I am trying to ensure that my pager is off, Mr. Hood, so that it does not distract the Committee.

Jimmy Hood: I am glad that the hon. Lady is keeping in order.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Member for Bath will also be interested to know that the clause transfers the employer formally. I hope that the Minister will confirm that my understanding is correct that the SRA will cease to be the employer and the British Transport police authority will become the employer. Will he clarify the implications of that change because I am sure that they will be extensive? It would be helpful to know whether the Secretary of State has the power to confirm the regulations in the same way that the Home Secretary has the power to confirm regulations for the regular police force? If the Secretary of State will not have the power, why did the Government decide not to allow him to confirm the regulations?

David Jamieson: The clause replicates the Home Secretary's powers to regulate other police forces that are contained in section 50 of the Police Act 1996. As the hon. Lady said, they cover the government, administration and conditions of service of police forces. They include consideration of ranks, promotion, retirement, discipline, suspension, hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances, special constables and cadets.
 Regulations made by the Home Secretary do not apply to the British Transport police. At the moment, the Strategic Rail Authority, as the force's employer, applies similar provisions to the British Transport police through other devices, notably its conditions of 
 employment and force general orders. In that way, the Strategic Rail Authority and the British Transport police have replicated the internal governance of the Home Office police forces. However, it is important to note that, in most instances, the Home Office regulations have to be modified to suit the needs of the British Transport police, because British Transport police officers, unlike Home Office constables, are and remain employees. I hope that that answers one of the hon. Lady's questions. 
 The Bill provides an opportunity to improve and regularise the position, and any solution should be simple to operate, without unnecessary bureaucracy. It should also demonstrate clearly that the British Transport police is a bona fide police force, subject to the same or equivalent police regulations that apply to Home Office forces. I hope that that covers another of the hon. Lady's points. 
 Our proposal was endorsed in the consultation process, and in the response of the Association of Police Authorities and the British Transport police and its federation. The clause will enable the authority to make the non-statutory regulations, which must be consistent with the Home Office regulations. They may differ from those regulations only to meet the specific needs and circumstances of the British Transport police. If the Home Office regulations change, it will be the authority's responsibility to ensure that the non-statutory British Transport police regulations change to fit it. 
 There was slight confusion on the issue of protocols that the hon. Lady raised. The rail accident investigation branch's protocols have nothing to do with the regulations made by the British Transport police authority. The hon. Lady asked whether the SRA would be the employer. The answer is no; the new employer will be the British Transport police authority.

Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson: I will, although the hon. Gentleman was not here for the discussion.

Don Foster: I apologise for that to the Minister and to you, too, Mr. Hood.
 The Minister has rightly said that there will be a transfer of responsibility from the SRA to the new authority. Will he give some idea of the savings to the budget of the SRA as a result of the loss of that responsibility?

David Jamieson: Funding essentially comes from the operators, so I do not think that there will be a change in the SRA's funding arrangement. The funding is just transferred through the customers. We shall refer to that later in the Bill.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York also asked whether the Secretary of State would confirm the regulation. With that question, we are perhaps getting ahead of ourselves, because clause 38 in part 2 affirms that he will.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, and for giving us the background. That is very helpful. I am a little confused, but accept that that is entirely my fault; I do not attribute it to the
 Minister. Can he tell me what the status of British Transport police constables will be under the new provisions? I think that the Minister said that Home Office-recruited constables are, and will continue to be, deemed employees. In the past, the British Transport police have been deemed to be employees of the SRA, but now they will be appointed by, and regulated under, regulations applied by the British Transport police authority. Are they therefore deemed to be employees of their authority, or self-employed? I might have misunderstood what the Minister said. Who will be their employers, and what will their status be?

David Jamieson: We ought to clear this up, as the hon. Lady is talking about self-employment. Home Office constables are officers of the Crown; they are not employees in law. The British Transport police constables are officers of the Crown and, currently, employees of the SRA. Assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent, they would then be employees of the British Transport police authority. That is how it has always been. There will be no change in the definition.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jimmy Hood: Order. It has been brought to my attention that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) may be reading a magazine or a newspaper, and that is against Standing Orders. If he is, will he desist from doing so?Clause 35 Police regulations: special constables

Clause 35 - Police regulations: special constables

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I shall try to grip the attention of all members of the Committee, so that no one is minded to break your strictures, Mr. Hood.
 Clause 34 does not apply to special constables or cadets, which is obviously why clause 35 was drafted. Will the Under-Secretary of States confirm that special constables will be recruited under conditions similar to those of their equivalents? I understand that specials are retained under different conditions and that most are voluntary. Presumably, that will apply to British Transport police as it does for Home Office-recruited special constables. 
 As we do to regular officers of the British Transport police, we owe our thanks to special constables of whom great demands are made. It is not a full-time occupation for them, but they put themselves at risk, especially in the present circumstances. I pay tribute to them. 
 I gather that the existing police force regulations may be modified. Can the Under-Secretary elucidate on the proposed modifications, or will it be left to the authority to determine them? How will the terms and conditions of the special constables differ from those of regular constables? I understand that, for the most part, they are voluntary. Is there any difficulty in recruiting specials? Many of us will support our regular police forces in their recruitment drive for special constables this weekend. Has the alarming 
 trend in the recruitment figures been reflected in the regulations?

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend was correct to point out the shortage of special constables in the British Transport police. Apparently, there are only 68 of them. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State pays particular attention to their recruitment.
 Clause 35(2) refers to the reflection of the structures and circumstances of the police force in the regulations. The guidance notes amplify that and refer to the special needs of the British Transport police in the making of regulations. Can the Under-Secretary explain a little about the structures, circumstances and special needs and about the regulations that he envisages making?

David Jamieson: The clause replicates the Home Secretary's powers to regulate the conditions of service for special constables under the Police Act 1996. I, too, pay tribute to the work of special constables. They are few in number, but they provide an excellent back-up to the work of the British Transport police. The regulations must be consistent with Home Office regulations, and they may differ from those only to meet the specific needs of the British Transport police. If the Home Office regulations change, it will be the authority's responsibility to ensure that the non-statutory British Transport police regulations change to fit them. Unlike the Home Office forces, the British Transport police is a national specialist police force; its officers are employees of both the British Transport police authority and holders of the statutory office of constable.
 Home Office constables, however, are only holders of the law, as we indicated in our debate on the last clause. The British Transport police are also funded by the railway industry, whereas Home Office forces are funded by direct grants from home Departments and local taxation. The draft legislation cannot be identical in every way to the Police Act 1996, but on the whole that is because of variations for technical reasons, rather than because of their effects. 
 I am not aware of particular difficulties with recruitment. There are presently difficulties with recruitment in many areas, but the effort is being been made to recruit the people who provide such a valuable service. I assure the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) that that will be reflected in our thinking and in the thinking of the British Transport police authority. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether the regulations would be the same for the specials—clause 35(1)(a) makes it clear that they would be the same. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Police regulations: cadets

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The subject of this clause is not covered by clause 34. Presumably, any difference in the regulations on the recruitment of cadets will relate purely to the fact that they have to be transported. I omitted to say that special constables are volunteers and that if they are travelling by train it may take them some time to get back. I do not know whether that poses a particular problem.
 Is the Minister concerned about the recruitment of cadets and will the regulations reflect any potential difficulties? What has the trend been during the past five years? We welcome the way in which cadets are recruited by the police force. I mentioned that during the debate on clause 25, but it is equally significant in respect of this clause. It would be interesting to know the average length of service of those recruits. I assume that some may be as young as 16; perhaps the Minister could confirm that. What is the average number of cadets recruited every year, and what is the average length of service? I understand that regulations will limit maximum service to 30 years. That would mean that recruits could retire and look in comfort for opportunities elsewhere. Is that what generally happens, or do cadets tend to remain in post for only five or 10 years and then seek other employment? 
 I am mindful of the Minister's comment on a company operating a transport depot. Potters, based in my constituency, has two such facilities—one in Selby and one in Ely, near Cambridge. The Minister was clear that if such firms had private security for those sites, they would not be required to enter into a police service agreement. There is clearly a big and attractive market in private security firms for which people might leave the police service to earn higher salaries. Has there been a tendency to poach young cadets after five or 10 years? 
 In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, the Minister said that there was difficulty in recruiting specials. Is there such difficulty in recruiting police cadets? If so, will that be reflected in any regulations that the authority would hope to make under the clause? How many cadets on average join the British Transport police, and what is their average length of service? I would imagine—I am guessing—that they would wish to stay in the force for the full 30 years.

Mark Lazarowicz: I want to raise one issue, on which I am sure there is a simple answer. I should be grateful to find out what it is.
 The clause and the preceding one make no specific mention of Scotland, even though the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 rather than the Police Act 1996 is applicable. I understand that the Government have tabled amendments to clauses 42 and 43 specifically mentioning regulations applying to Scotland. I wonder why there is no such mention in clauses 35 and 36.

David Jamieson: Clause 36 replicates the Home Secretary's powers under section 52 of the 1996 Act to regulate the conditions of service for police cadets. It enables the authority to make non-statutory regulations for the British Transport police's cadets. They must be consistent with Home Office regulations; they may differ only in order to meet the transport police's specific needs. As I said in the previous debate, if Home Office regulations change, it will be the authority's responsibility to ensure that the non-statutory BTP regulations also change to fit as appropriate.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked a number of detailed questions about the present arrangements for cadets. I imagine that anyone who had been a cadet for 30 years would no longer consider themselves to be one. The job is mainly intended for younger people, so the idea of retiring after 30 years would not apply. One would have thought that they would before then have joined the main service or become a special. Perhaps I should have spared the hon. Lady the agony of asking all those questions, as the Committee will recall from the debate on clause 25 that there are currently no BTP cadets. We were therefore unable to make the comparisons that she sought. 
 Clauses 35 and 36 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that will apply to clause 34. Clauses 42 and 43 allow us to make regulations under the 1996 Act. We will need to make it clear that they are UK-wide, which explains amendments later in the Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but it does not answer my question. Why do clauses 42 and 43 specifically refer to their applying in Scotland when clauses 35 and 36, which also apply UK-wide, do not? The Minister will be aware that the Home Secretary does not have powers in Scotland to make regulations in relation to police matters.

David Jamieson: I shall look at that matter in more detail and will take written advice. I would like to come back to my hon. Friend and give him a full and proper answer later.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - British Transport Police Federation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The British Transport Police Federation has a key role in determining the morale of the police force. Police officers welcome the provisions relating to jurisdiction being placed on a statutory, rather than a contractual, footing. They believe that an independent authority will help to address perceptions of partiality, and of whether the force is too weak or too tough on the industry.
 When we considered the previous clause on terms of employment, concern was expressed about the British Transport police becoming subject to increasingly demanding work, given the level of terrorist threat and security alert. We will be making more demands on them, and that will be important in our 
 consideration of the British Transport Police Federation's role. I referred to concern expressed by officers currently employed by the British Transport police regarding pensions. We have already debated that and can look at it further under the relevant clause. 
 What regulations can the authority make under the clause? In setting up the British Transport Police Federation, are the Government doing anything other than putting matters on a statutory footing and recognising that the British Transport police authority becomes the employer? 
 The welfare and efficiency of the British Transport police is a matter of great concern. Low morale is often reflected by people taking sick leave. When I first represented the Vale of York in 1997, the force there had one of the worst records of sick leave and early retirement of any in the country. I am pleased that the situation has changed because of a succession of chief constables. I must be getting long in the tooth as I am on to my third chief constable in only five years. I am speaking only for myself, Mr. Hood, when I say that the police seem to get younger, while we get older. We cannot underestimate the role that the federation will play. I am sure that the Minister will keep a watching brief on sick leave and early retirement, which are a significant drain on resources. In my own police force there are fewer operational officers than there are on deferred or actual pensions.

Andrew Murrison: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, especially in connection with sick leave. A comparative study could usefully be made between the British Transport police and other specialist forces, such as the Ministry of Defence police. The Minister may wish to know the reasons for any differences between the forces.

Anne McIntosh: I am told that that subject is risky territory because existing officers of the British Transport police believe that there is a likelihood of being linked to the Ministry of Defence police. My hon. Friend's comments are especially appropriate and perhaps the Minister will recall this more clearly, but I understand that the MOD police were rebuffed about two years ago when they sought wider jurisdiction in an appeal to the House of Lords.
 Officers from the British Transport police would wish to record that they differ substantially from the MOD police, as we have already heard in our discussions on the Bill. Does the Minister agree that, especially following the passing of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, we are likely to make comparisons—wrongly, the Minister would probably say—with the work of the MOD now that British Transport police officers have been given extra jurisdiction? 
 The federation may wish to consider whether officers should be armed. They are not armed at present. As we know, they routinely inspect and police public areas, as opposed to MOD police who, by definition, inspect military bases. I understand that British Transport police train at Home Office rather than MOD establishments and are full members of the 
 Association of Chief Police Officers. We must be careful not to draw too close a comparison and it is not a path that I would seek to go down. 
 We are obviously conscious of the increasing terrorist threat. Has the Minister been approached by a representative of the British Transport police? I understand that they are all unarmed. Has there been a request in the past two years, especially since 11 September 2001, for certain members of the British Transport police to be armed? Clearly, from the public's point of view, it would be an alarming development. 
 Although I do not understand the terrorist or criminal mind, if we put all our efforts into securing airports and planes, by definition, we make railway stations and property more vulnerable. They will be perceived to be weaker targets. Have the Minister or his ministerial colleagues been approached by the federation or any serving British Transport police officer requesting a higher security presence? 
 Like the twin towers, Big Ben is our national symbol, and it is meant to put us at ease to see large numbers of police walking around in flak jackets and carrying semi-automatic rifles. I am not sure that seeing them when I come to my place of work has the desired effect. Obviously, if a missile is launched at us, I do not think policemen with flak jackets and machine guns will be of much assistance in defending either themselves or us. However, I can envisage circumstances imminently when it may be in our interest to consider such a request from the British Transport police. Their officers may wish to remain unarmed for the same reasons that the general police force wishes largely to be unarmed. I understand that the federation welcomes the statutory basis that lies behind the Bill, and its recruitment and employer changing. It welcomes that the legislation places the pay and conditions of the British Transport police within the regulatory framework that is governed by the Secretary of State as a helpful move to support the force to modernise and to achieve comparability with the Home Office police forces. I also welcome that because it must be good for the force's morale. 
 Circumstances can arise that dent the morale of the police force—for example, if someone is promoted who is deemed by their peers not to be eligible for such promotion, or if a member of the British Transport police is thought to have been disciplined incorrectly. Does the Minister have examples of such circumstances in mind? I can think of one example that we do not like to discuss in north Yorkshire. It led to a large pay-out—£1 million—to a lady constable in a town in the region. Therefore, I am aware of how greatly morale can be dented. It would be helpful to know that the regulations that we are told can be laid under clause 37 to set up the British Transport police federation are exactly the same as those that currently exist, or if there are any differences. 
 There is a concern in certain quarters of the British Transport police that the police authority might attract criticism in the future. The Metropolitan police authority made overtures that it would like to take over the policing of the London underground. I hope that the Minister will clarify today whether there 
 is any chance of that happening. If the British Transport police achieve an authority of their own that sets up a federation under this clause, does the Minister share its concern that it may attract criticism as a result of the fact that it has become the employer?

Kelvin Hopkins: The federation is effectively the trade union for the British Transport police and it is always important that trade unions are consulted when legislation is brought forward. Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say to what extent it has been consulted and whether there have been any sharp differences of view between what the federation would like and what the Government are proposing?

David Jamieson: The clause establishes the British Transport police federation on a statutory basis and allows the authority to make regulations regarding the federation. These provisions are modelled on sections 60 and 61 of the Police Act 1996, which establishes the Police Federation of England and Wales. The purpose of the British Transport police federation will be the same as that of its Home Office counterpart. It will represent British Transport police officers in matters of welfare and efficiency, except in promotion and discipline matters.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to an individual case. It would be inappropriate for the federation to be involved in an individual disciplinary case rather than in general matters of welfare. That is the difference between the federation's role and that of the trade union. 
 I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) that the current British Transport police federation has been widely consulted on these matters. It is proper that they should be and I understand that it broadly supports the proposals that are being made. 
 The authority will be given powers to make non-statutory regulations concerning the British Transport police federation. As with other regulations, they must be based on the equivalent regulations made by the Home Secretary under powers in the Police Act 1996. They may only be different to meet the specific needs of the British Transport police. If the Home Office regulations change, it will be the responsibility of the authority to ensure that the non-statutory British Transport police regulations remain consistent. As with the main Police Federation, the British Transport police federation will be prohibited from being affiliated with other organisations unless the Secretary of State approves. 
 I am not sure whether, during the short exchange between the hon. Members for Westbury and for Vale of York, there was a suggestion that there might have been a merger of the British Transport police with the Ministry of Defence. It is an issue that has been raised occasionally. Perhaps the hon. Member for Westbury was alluding to the benchmarking of one authority against the other. However, perhaps it would be inappropriate for me to engage in that debate now. 
 The hon. Lady raised the matter of the excellent and demanding work of the British Transport police. 
 It undeniably plays a vital role in our transport system. As in all matters of criminality or terrorism, our transport system is vulnerable. She asked whether the British Transport police should be armed. At present, they do not have powers to carry guns and there are no proposals to change that. I am not aware of any proposal or approach by the federation to that end. The British Transport police can carry CS gas for use in appropriate circumstances. 
 I sympathised with the hon. Lady when she said that she has dealt with three different chief constables since she was elected. In the Home Office police force in my area, not only have we had three chief constables, but now I find that the new chief constable is considerably younger than me. That is of increasing concern when we have been in this place a certain length of time. Promotion and discipline in the British Transport police are based on the same procedures as in the Home Office police force and that will continue to be so under the Bill. 
 There was a question about the London underground area and how that will be tackled. The Government have been looking at ways to improve further the close co-operation between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police in that regard. The merger of the British Transport police London underground area with that of the Metropolitan police authority was one of several possibilities explored in conjunction with the British Transport police, the Metropolitan police and Transport for London.

Don Foster: At column 158 of the Hansard report of our deliberations earlier this week, the Minister of State sadly failed to give a direct answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about whether there were any proposals for the Metropolitan police to take over responsibilities currently carried out by the British Transport police. In the Minister of State's reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York, he said that discussions had taken place, but he did not tell us what the outcome was. Will the Under-Secretary confirm once and for all that it will not happen?

David Jamieson: The outcome of those discussions was that there should be closer co-operation between the police forces in tackling crime on public transport and around other interchanges.

Anne McIntosh: There was one question that I omitted. I apologise to the Committee, to you, Mr. Hood, and to the Minister for that. In his helpful replies to my questions about the clause, he touched on the possibility of the Met and the British Transport police merging with regard to the London underground area. The question of airport policing has also been exercising the minds of the British Transport police. They have not given detailed consideration to the possibility of policing all airports, but they would argue that clear benefits could emerge from that.
 The Wheeler report—I am not sure in which year that was adopted—identified shortcomings in the security arrangements at airports across the UK. The 
 report referred to the need to improve co-ordination, consistency and clarity. Perhaps, given today's activities at airports, it is appropriate to consider that in relation to the British Transport police's suggestion. A single police force with national responsibilities could assist in achieving the goals of the report and provide a simple mechanism for speedily implementing national policy. 
 Airports are transport hubs. In most cases, they are lucky enough to have train access. That is not true of Leeds-Bradford international and Teesside international airports, but I am making representations on the matter, and I take the opportunity to do so now. If the Minister has a little money left, it could perhaps be used on railway connections to those two airports. That would be helpful. Underground and mainline railways are often a key method of access to airports. Although there is good co-operation between the British Transport police, who police the railways, and the Home Office forces, who police the airports, it could be argued that a single force with overall responsibility would remove that boundary, which could result in different responses to threats in proximate geographical areas. 
 The geographical boundaries are often indistinct. There is direct access to Heathrow via the Heathrow express and the London underground, and to Gatwick via the Gatwick express. Airports pay for policing, and that is a substantial cost, particularly at present. The British Transport police are familiar with that commercial interface and operating environment. Have the Government considered whether a national police force would fit well with a national airports authority? I am just probing the Minister; I am not saying that the Conservatives are calling for that. I understand that the present arrangements are working extremely well, but I am mindful that we do not know whether the terrorist threat will concern an airport or rail access to it.

David Jamieson: There are no proposals for the British Transport police to work at airports. Obviously, there is an interface, as forces work in co-operation with each other. Of course, the British Transport police can police airports if they are requested to do so, as is provided for under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. However, that would not be the norm.
 Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Regulations: approval in draft

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have a small, probing question. The authority can make regulations under clauses 34, 35, 36, and 37 only if a draft has been approved by three parties:
''(a) the Chief Constable,
(b) the staff associations, and
(c) the Secretary of State.''
 I shall play devil's advocate for a moment. We have established that the British Transport police's funding comes from three sources; the cost is substantial. Primarily, the transport police are paid for by the train-operating companies. The rest of the funding comes from Railtrack and London Underground, which give broadly similar amounts. Would it be appropriate for those paying for the service to be consulted, or has that never been considered a good thing? Are there specific reasons why the Minister did not consider that? Does he feel that it would be inappropriate? 
 The hon. Member for Luton, North referred to the federation as a trade union. I have always considered it to be more than a trade union. I have enormous regard for the British Transport police federation. 
 Many of us had contacts with our own branches of the Police Federation during the recent pay review. I do not want to stimulate a great debate on the issue, but the federation plays an important role and it often faces rebuffs. 
 On clause 38(5), what is meant by staff associations, and how do staff associations—one hates to use the term ''trade unions'' in this regard—fit in with the federation? Being simple-minded, I would like to know the difference, for the purposes of the clause, between the police federation and a staff association. To get answers to those two questions would be helpful. 
 Have the Government ever considered that it might be appropriate to pass the regulation by those who provide the funding? In most circumstances, the body that provides the funding cannot technically be considered as the employer. I accept that the British Transport police authority will be the employer, but if the employer were the Strategic Rail Authority, I imagine that the industry might be consulted on the regulations. Will the Minister clarify whether it is a change, or whether it has always been the case? Will he also confirm what constitutes a staff association?

David Jamieson: The previous clauses would provide the authority with the powers to make regulations for the administration of the British Transport police. Those regulations must be modelled on the equivalent regulations that have been made by the Secretary of State in respect of the Home Office police forces. The regulations will govern how the British Transport police operate internally. It is, therefore, essential that the chief constable, the British Transport police's staff associations, the British Transport police federation, the Police Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers be consulted during the drafting process. The difference is that the setting up and role of the federation have been defined in the Bill. However, members can still join other associations if they are of the appropriate rank.
 The regulations will require the Secretary of State's prior approval. In most cases we would expect the authority, the chief constable and the staff associations to reach agreement on the regulations. However, if there is a dispute between them, the Secretary of State will be able to allow the authority to dispense with the need to obtain the agreement of the chief constable and of the staff associations. Before he does that the 
 Secretary of State would consult the chief constable and the staff associations to ensure that they were both aware of the proposals. He would allow them to present their cases. We do not expect that facility to be used frequently, but it would be needed to unblock the process if a dispute arose. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked why the regulations in clause 38(2) should not be approved by someone from the industry. The industry is a member of the authority—it will have four members—and that body will bring forward the regulations. It would be curious if we went round in a circle and consulted the same people again. It would be inappropriate for the train-operating companies to be able to give any consent to the regulations, because those relate only to the police constables, to their rank, promotion, retirement and other arrangements. As they already have members on the authority, no purpose would be served by their having to give approval under this part.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary of State. He has been extremely helpful. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister of State to our proceedings.

John Spellar: I am sure that I did not miss anything.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be able to read the report of our proceedings.

Jimmy Hood: I am sure that the Minister does not intend to disrupt the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Hood, for your guidance.
 I asked a question earlier to which I did not receive a reply. If the Under-Secretary of State would find it helpful, I can remind him of it. He said that four members of the train-operating companies—the employers of the industry—will sit on the authority. The point that I am about to make means a great deal to those companies. Am I right that that number will decrease from four out of 11 to four out of 13, 15 or 17? That will be a significant reduction in their representation. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that that is worrying the companies, given that they are picking up the bill for such matters. 
 In the financial year ending in 2002, the figure was £126 million. The companies are not complaining about having to pick up the bill; they understand that they are beneficiaries of the service provided by the police. However, they are worried that their level of representation will decrease. That is a genuine cause of concern, and we have great sympathy with it. Will the Under-Secretary of State review the matter and ensure that the level of representation of the industry on the authority increases? The industry is funding the authority; it will run to a large amount of money out of its budget. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath is about to intervene and say that the companies are being subsidised by the taxpayer. 
Mr. Foster indicated assent.

Anne McIntosh: I did not want to put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth. Now is a wonderful opportunity for the Under-Secretary of State to confirm that he will reconsider whether the Government got it wrong, and that the level of representation of the industry on the police authority should increase to five or six members out of 13 and more again if the authority membership increases to 17.
 The Under-Secretary of State's remarks raised a further question. We have discussed the definition of the British Transport police federation and how that is set out under clause 37. Why are the staff association and the superintendents association not defined in the Bill? Is it because they are a movable feast? Are they not defined because they have not been so previously, or did the Government not think to define them? It would be helpful for everyone, not least for reasons of clarity, if the staff associations were defined, as the British Transport police federation is. I hope that he will give the Committee an assurance that the federation and the staff associations to which he referred will carry equal weight in the approval of the regulations.

David Jamieson: The final subsection of the clause allows the Secretary of State to specify by order which staff associations representing the British Transport police should be consulted on the regulations. The British Transport police federation is formally established under clause 37, which we have just agreed. However, there is also the British Transport Police Superintendents Association, which mirrors its Home Office equivalent in functions and duties. That is not a statutory body, but the main superintendents association is recognised by the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996, so the Secretary of State is likely to recognise the British Transport Police Superintendents Association.
 The British Transport police federation represents the majority of constables and that is why that is in the Bill. Others represent a minority, and they are generally described as staff associations. 
 The hon. Lady asked about the number of representatives on the authority. The current figure is four out of nine. That will become approximately four out of 13 under the new arrangements. The hon. Lady asked if there could be any change to that—if we would review the balance. If we were to do that, there would also be a review of the balance of the others who are represented on the body. 
 The authority must balance the interests of those whom the British Transport police serve. They have a wider public policing role that impacts directly on rail passengers and the wider community. Passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer ultimately pay the cost of policing on the railways through fares and subsidy. Therefore, non-industry members will have as keen an interest as industry members in obtaining value for money. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Police regulations: direction to authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Why do we need clause 39? What purpose does it serve? It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State may direct the authority to make the regulations if they are approved. I would have thought that, by definition, the regulations would be made if they were approved.
 Non-statutory regulations proposed by the authority will not differ unduly from regulations made under the Police Act 1996. If the authority is unable to reach agreement with the chief constable and the staff associations, the Secretary of State may direct the authority to prepare draft regulations. In those circumstances, clause 38(3), which we have just agreed, would enable the Secretary of State to permit the authority to dispense with obtaining the prior approval of the chief constable and the staff associations. If that is the case—I understand that it is—I have a difficulty with clause 39. I would have thought that it would be better for all concerned to get the approval of the chief constable. Perhaps this is why chief constables in our respective areas move on rather more rapidly than Members of Parliament in the constituencies that they serve. 
 I have difficulty with this clause, if it is correct that the Secretary of State will have the power to overrule any concerns of the chief constable, but also of the staff associations, including presumably the federation. I argue that the clause gives extensive powers to the Secretary of State. I hate to suggest that that could lead to a police state, but the chief constable and the staff associations may encounter tremendous problems if the Secretary of State is able to overrule them. Can the Minister envisage the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would be minded to overrule the concerns of the chief constable or the staff associations? 
 The morale and welfare of police officers could be severely dented if the Secretary of State had the power of direction. Can the Minister tell us what the circumstances leading to power of direction would be?

David Jamieson: Clause 39 allows the Secretary of State to direct the authority to make regulations regarding the British Transport police. In exceptional circumstances it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to instruct the authority to draft regulations for the British Transport police. We do not envisage that that power will be used regularly. There may be rare occasions when the authority is unable or unwilling to make regulations but the Secretary of State believes it is important for them to do so.
 Regulations have to be approved by the chief constable and the staff associations, as well as by the Secretary of State; that is set out in clause 38. The Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for the authority, and he must have the power to direct it under certain circumstances. Under clause 38, the Secretary of State can dispense with the need to reach approval with the chief constable and staff associations, but we do not anticipate that that would happen frequently and we would certainly need to consult on that issue first. I am unable to give a list of those circumstances. The clause is there in the rare event that that power should be required.

Anne McIntosh: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bath is not getting more exercised by this clause, given he is from a liberal background. I am now more alarmed than I would have been had the Minister not clarified the point. It would have been helpful for the Committee—and the British Transport police—to hear precisely what the exceptional circumstances might be. I am disappointed that the Minister failed to grasp my point that potentially it could pose problems for the chief constable and the staff associations to be overruled in that way.
 The fact that the clause is included in the Bill tells the chief constable and the staff associations where they stand. It is a regrettable clause, and we shall monitor closely how it might be applied as the Bill progresses. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Police regulations by Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: My concerns about this clause are similar to my concerns about clause 39. Clause 40 enables the Secretary of State to make statutory regulations in relation to the British Transport police. We are told that the power would be used sparingly and only in certain circumstances, such as when the authority is unable to make the regulations itself. Again, it would be helpful to ask what those circumstances might be. Having considered clause 39, why do we need clause 40? I may be reading them incorrectly, but they seem remarkably similar.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.